Re: Proposed pre-selected sessions

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:00 AM, François Daoust <francois@joshfire.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Three parties requested pre-selected sessions before the deadline:
>>>
>>>         • Web Intents and Web Intents for local services
>>>         • Testing
>>>         • Smarter Webapps for Smarter Phones
>>>
>>> I propose we:
>>>
>>>  a) Say yes to those that requested.
>>>  b) Mark them as such in the wiki.
>>>
>>> Unless there are objections, I'll let people know on Monday.
>>
>> I object, as I did in previous email.
>>
>> As observed in the minutes, with the experience last year, people will
>> have no problem proposing sessions on day of, and I'd rather avoid
>> showing any kind of apparent (even if unintended) topic-focus implied
>> by preselection, especially with so few pre-selection proposals.
>>
>> I'd rather go with no preselected proposals rather than rubberstamping
>> a few by default just because there were so few proposals.
>
> I thought we also said we would try to please people who are not
> entirely comfortable with the idea that their session might not
> happen. 3 sessions sound like a reasonable cost.


I'm ok if this is done for cross-cultural reasons (which doesn't
appear to be the case for the 3 proposals). But not just because the
sessions are there.

> The "Tell us if you'd like to reserve a slot" is also something we
> asked people to do. It seems a bit odd to now come back and say
> "Thanks. No." to everyone.

It doesn't seem odd at all. Just because someone requests a slot
doesn't mean they get one. And we gave no criteria about how many
slots (*if* any) that we would have.

> Given the success in terms of the number of
> topics that appear on the Wiki this time and the short number of
> people who asked to be pre-selected, I think it's a good idea not to
> propose such a mechanism next time (sticking to something like
> "contact us if you have questions or specific demands")

I'd be in favor of having all sessions merely *optionally*
*brainstormed* on the wiki beforehand, and then proposed in person for
specific time/room coordinates.


>> The proposers of these are welcome to do so in-person at the Tech
>> Plenary. I have a feeling that the latter two in particular may
>> overlap with others' proposals (those topics come up a lot in web
>> developer discussions) and thus it would be better to have them
>> combined with similar proposals in real-time.
>
> I agree that the session "Testing at W3C" probably does not need
> pre-selection. The persons who proposed the topic are also fluent in
> barcamps, and I don't think they are the ones who actually requested
> the session to be pre-selected. Or did they?

That's part of the problem. We don't know. We don't know if they're
even going to actually show up. Another reason why it's better to just
make all sessions be done day-of (cross-cultural reasons excepted as
noted above).


> In short, I would:
> - say "yes" to the first and last session
> - check with people who proposed "Testing at W3C" whether they think
> their session needs to be pre-selected.

I still think the number of pre-selected sessions is too small to
merit pre-selecting any, and that pre-selecting just two implies an
artificial bias/approval of said topics that is not intended.

I think those sessions proposers will do just fine proposing on the day-of.

Thanks,

Tantek

Received on Monday, 22 October 2012 22:57:02 UTC